Re: [orthodox-synod] The Cry of the New Martyrs ?

... JRS: X.B.! Certainly things were simpler and clearer in those days. But things were also a lot worse in Russia, which is what made it all seem so simple

Message 1 of 58
, Apr 29, 2004

0 Attachment

Fr. Sergei Overt wrote:

> Yes, it was a nice time in ROCOR
> It was easy to define our ROCOR.
> We were fighting communism, ecumenism and so on.........

JRS: X.B.!

Certainly things were simpler and clearer in those days. But things
were also a lot worse in Russia, which is what made it all seem so
simple and clear for us.

Nowadays, the developments in Russia should, theoretically, be a cause
of rejoicing for us, rather than something that threatens a comfortable
position...

But I think we have to admit we were not "fighting communism and
ecumenism" at all, not in the slightest. We only liked to think we
were "fighting"!

Nothing we did made any dent in communist power, except for
the "Pravoslavnoe Delo" of the much-maligned Archbishop Anthony of
Geneva. And then, the "dent" that his work made consisted, not of
attacks on the Soviet regime, let alone on the Moscow Patriarchate, but
simply of providing information about the Orthodox faith to people
living in Russia, so far as possible.

But those of us who merely abstained from contacts, or wrote attacks on
the hierarchy in Russia (even if deserved!), were only building up
animosity.

As for "fighting ecumenism", how did we fight that?

Did we go to the Greek clergy and try to reason with them?

Most of us did absolutely nothing, except perhaps say that the Greeks
had apostasized.

As a result of that posture, and of avoiding contacts with the other
Orthodox, our young people were kept from contacts with other Orthodox.

There was a certain group that travelled long distances for ROCOR-only
youth retreats.

But the majority of the young people grew up and away from the Church:
away from Orthodoxy.

Part of that has been due to a syndrome of knowing *only* one's home
parish. There may be other Orthodox parishes in the same town, but
since we avoided any dealings with them, they were no closer to the
younger generations than the Roman Catholics, the Lutherans, &c.

Many of our own, American-born, people have asked me, over the years,
if there was any connection between "Greek Orthodox" and "Russian
Orthodox"?

Then, if I said Yes, sometimes the next question would be, "What about
the Orthodox Presbyterians"?

The truth is that most of what we "did" (rather, abstained from doing)
over the past 40-plus years, did nothing at all to "fight ecumenism".

Ecumenism may have been something fashionable among the Greeks, and
some Greeks may have been proud to "see Archbishop Iakovos up there
with the others at Kennedy's inauguration". But the Russians have no
particular interest in such things, and can hardly be "infected" with
ecumenism by meeting other Orthodox.

Yet they meet non-Orthodox every day.

And the underlying "ecumenist threat" among Russians is not something
that comes from the Greeks, but an old idea that "God is the same for
everybody", i.e. "one religion is as good as another".

This is a concept that was not learned from the Greeks or the Syrians
or the Romanians, but from their own Russian-born Babushka -- who was
the same person that took the kids to church, and from whom they
learned most of what they know about Orthodox Christianity.

In Christ
Fr. John R. Shaw

vkozyreff

Dear Elizabeth, You write: So, anybody leaving ROCOR under the pretence of changing relations with the MP did so rashly, passionately, improperly, un

Message 58 of 58
, May 17, 2004

0 Attachment

Dear Elizabeth,

You write: "So, anybody "leaving" ROCOR under the pretence of
changing relations with the MP did so rashly, passionately,
improperly, un canonically and incorrectly".

VK: The clergy of France did not do it improperly. They introduced a
perfectly correct canonical complaint. They promised in advance,
according to the canon law, to abide by the verdict of the Synod,
provided only the Synod would consider the matter.

As a consequence, hey were quickly suspended and then defrocked,
without hearing. This is a fact, independent of the opinion that one
may have on the outcome of the judgement of Vl. Ambrose.

Conversely, the Sobor who, in violation of the Holy
canons, "suspended and defrocked" the clergy of France, by virtue of
the Holy Canons themselves, is subject to the the very punishment
unjustly inflicted : is it is suspended and defrocked.

You write: "In my view, that is exactly what is happening now:
questions are being EXAMINED. The questions are hard. Why anyone
thinks they will be quickly resolved, I can't understand. Vl.
Hilarion said it will take years, maybe decades...

The problem is that, before even having "the hard questions
examined", we proclaim the grace, we exchange the kiss ..."

VK: It is not even possible anymore to examine anything, since the
first hand testimonies (the clergy suspended and defrocked) are no
more there to testify.

> are
> > the real provocateurs. They are the ones who helped cause the
> recent schism
> > within ROCOR. Elizabeth doesn't see that?
>
>
> I don't recall making any public comments recently about the MP-

ROCOR

> question, so I am puzzled as to why what I "see" with regard to the
> MP is questioned. Just because I disagreed with your line of

thinking

> in a recent thread with Fr.John Shaw, Michael, doesn't mean I
> automatically diasgree with one party on everything or agree with
> someone else about EVERYTHING.
>
>
>
>
> >Yet our Bishops go running
> > to the Patriarch to kiss his hand.
>
> I would hardly call this delegation, happening some half a year

after

> an invitation was extended, "running".
>
>
> >Why not show the same brotherly love
> > to those who left because of imminent union with MP?
>
>
> This statement in itself succinctly captures the hypocrisy and

folly

> of the schismatics. Who says that 'union' with the MP
> is 'imminent'?? It doesn't seem so to me.
>
> I could, MAYBE (maybe not, I'm not promising anything!), understand
> some division within ROCOR's "faithful" AFTER THE FACT of a

reunion,

> if some staunch MP opponents simply could never live with being

under

> the MP and, in fact, a "union" in which ROCOR ceased to exist
> independently were to occur. But.... hello?... THAT HASN'T
> HAPPENED!! And it is highly doubtful that it WILL happen: all
> statements I've seen have indicated a desire for ROCOR to remain
> autonomous. So, anybody "leaving" ROCOR under the pretense of
> changing relations with the MP did so rashly, passionately,
> improperly, uncanonically and incorrectly. or is simply LYING

about

> it, as a cover for other reasons for leaving (such as: they just
> can't live within the Church's rules (can't stand the heat, get out
> of the kitchen), or they want to retain ownership of ROCOR real
> estate... for example...)
>
> I believe that the schisms (especially the Mansonville travesty)
> have caused GREAT HEARTACHE to Met. Laurus and to many clergymen,
> who have consistently begged for reason and propriety. I submit

that

> the really sincere "leavers" should show both some humilty and some
> brotherly love of their own, and should come back, beg for
> forgiveness, and stand by the Metropolitan and pray together with

and

> for him as he leads the church through a challenging but necessary
> journey.
>
> >The French have
> > asked for dialogue only to get shunned. Does Elizabeth care?
>
>
> Yes, since you asked, I care, and have said so in the past!

However,

> from my point of view, the French were given a chance to be heard

and

> recklessly and disobediently spat upon that chance. Others who

post

> to these public lists (M. Nikitin, V. Kozyreff, I. Pahlen,
> V.Grigorieva all come to mind) see this matter entirely

differently,

> I acknowledge. And I think we will never agree about it at this
> point, and must now agree to disagree on our view of what happened
> then. It is more important now to think about what should and could
> happen now to fix it.
>
> >Or are we
> > to be staunch against ROAC, HOCNA and ROCOR(V) but not MP?
> > Where is the Love that everyone talks about?
>
>
> There is no ROCOR (V)-- if you must, call them ROCIE, but they

should

> not exist and their abuse of the senile Metropolitan Vitaly's name

is

> a disgrace. It is hard to love them for that.
>
> >
> > The enemies of ROCOR are those who push for union
> > with MP with disregard to the faithful and cause schisms.
>
> If you take the first and last words of this sentence, see how true
> it is: "The enemies of ROCOR cause schisms"
>
> I am sure that there are people in MP who rejoice at every

crumbling

> away of the ROCOR base. Others laugh at it and mock it: a bunch of
> crazies, they think. All those who are staunch against MP and yet
> abandon and abuse ROCOR and her hierarchs and clergy just as she is
> facing the MP are hypocrites!
>
>
> Look, for the record, I am not blindly "pro-MP". I live in Germany
> where the MP has a strong and aggressively growing presence. A lot

of

> what I observe first-hand, smells BAD: an Archbishop who chats with
> foreign guests during Divine Liturgy, and attends a Friday night
> beach barbecue during a Fast, wearing Chinos and a sport
> shirt; "deloviy" (business-oriented, not flock-oriented) priests; a
> priest in Vienna who, one Bright Monday, responded to "Hristos
> Voskrese" with "Ya slishal" ("I heard"); funeral services
> (otpivaniyii) that last 20 minutes, from the first trisagion to
> lowering the coffin into the grave, all the faster to collect the
> remuneration... ... ... I could go on and on.
>
> And yet, the churches are full. The people are spiritually hungry.

We

> have a duty to share what we preserved. Many young priests (and

many

> older ones, I am sure, who struggled through unbelievable

challenges

> under communism) are earnest and love God. We cannot stand still

in

> time. The questions must be examined.
>
> In my view, that is exactly what is happening now: questions are
> being EXAMINED. The questions are hard. Why anyone thinks they

will

> be quickly resolved, I can't understand. Vl. Hilarion said it will
> take years, maybe decades....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Metr.Laurus stated the MP must leave ecumenism before any union
> > can be forthcoming, but partaking of Mysteries is allowed before
> they leave?
> > Shouldn't we not have any participation in Mysteries before the

MP

> leaves
> > ecumenism? My feeling is ROCOR(L) will keep on having communion
> with MP
> > regardless of MP's affiliation with ecumenism.
> >
> > Michael N
> >
> >
> > boulia_1 <eledkovsky@h...> wrote: This thread is getting absurd!
> First of all, I thought this list did
> > not permit representations of third parties. If this Father

George

> > cares so much about this issue ("emphatically denies...."), let

him

> > get on-line, join this group, and speak for himself. Otherwise, I
> > wish mr. Nikitn would pleas drop it already.
> >
> > Secondly, good for Fr. John for being staunch in his position
> against
> > HOCNA. On a list of ROCOR "members and friends" this is as it
> should
> > be. They are a source of embarrassment in the ROCOR's history and
> > some of their followers seem to continue to be provocateurs of